tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 15, 2009 2:00pm-3:00pm EST
the attacks and much more. i'm shannon bream. thanks for watching fox news where more news is always on the way. captioned by, closed captioning services, inc. >> chris: i'm chris wallace and this is "fox news sunday." the alleged 9/11 conspirators get their day in court. a civilian court near ground zero. is the obama administration plan the best way to serve justice and protect the homeland? we'll talk with rudy giuliani, the mayor of new york on 9/11. and democratic senator jack reed. then from the way forward in afghanistan to the latest on healthcare, we will discuss the gop's strategy with senator mitch mcconnell, the party's top man in washington. plus, seaso sarah palin rolls r
new book, reintroducing herself to america and settling old scores. will our sunday panel care to comment. in you betcha. and our power player of the week, working shaun stop to keep us safe from h1n1. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. the decision by attorney general holder on friday to try khalid shaikh muhammad and four of the alleged 9/11 conspirators at a new york city civilian court triggered strong criticism and praise. we will hear from both sides today starting with former mayor rudy giuliani. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> nice to be back, chris. >> i want to start with comments that attorney general holder made on friday when announced his decision. here they are. >> after eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of september 11th will finally face justice. they will be brought to new
york, to new york to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. >> chris: mayor, as a matter of simple justice isn't it right to bring these men back to the scene of the crime? >> why? we generally don't do that. we generally don't bring people back to the scene of the crime for justice. the reality, we didn't do that in our other wars. it would seem to me what the obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality the war in terror from their point of view is over and we are no o longer going to treat these people as if this this was an act of war and we will go back to the prees 9/11 approach, trying it as a civilian matter which turned out to be a terrible mistake. they are repeating the mistake of history. >> chris: but your successor mayor bloomberg disagrees with you on almost every point.
he says it is "fitting" to try these men in downtown new york city and says that your city has handled big terror trials before and says that the new york city police department can handle the security issues. is mayor bloomberg wrong? >> i don't agree with him. i agree that the new york city police department can handle the security, no question about it. and if kate had to be in new york we should handle it. it doesn't have tobies. there are going to be military tribunals for other terrorists. we wouldn't you have military tribunals for this terrorist? of course, it will create more security concerns. wait and see how much money new york city spends on this to protect it. and finally we are granting his wish. his wish was to be brought to new york and that makes no sense to me to be granting him his risk. he should be tried in a military tribunal. he is a war criminal, this was an act of war. we made this mistake once before in 1993 and didn't read the intentions racetrackly and
then we ended up with three more -- correctly and then ended up with three more attacks on american soldiers andnd attack of 9/11. of course, this is the administration that told us that there was no war on terror. the only problem is the terrorists seem to believe there is a war on us. >> chris: but mayor, i want to pick up on the argument that it is a mistake to treat terrorists as common criminals in a civilian court. i want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 world trade center bombers. you said this, i think it shows you put terrorism on one side and put our legal system on the other and our legal system come cans out ahead and after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker,
zacarias moussaoui. >> and if there is no other alternative i support civilian trials for terrorists. the reality is there is another alternative here and this administration has created tribunals, at least five, possibly more terrorist letts be tried in those tribunals. if there was no other choice, again, chris, i support this. if there was no other price and they had to be tried in new york, of course, they should be tried in new york but it is another choice. a better choice for the government. this choice of new york is a better choice for the terrorists. why would utah seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you are giving the public? but with regard to 1993, it turns out we were wrong in 1993. that was a mistake. most experts have come to that con luke. >> chris: what about 2006 with zacarias moussaoui? >> i would have preferred to see him tried in a military
court. if it is going to be a civilian court, let's convict him as do it as well as we can. the reality is all the benefits to the terrorists and much less benefits to the public and we are doing what wants us to do. >> chris: mayor -- >> he is asking for a trial in new york and we are giving it to him. since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists. >> chris: some of the detainees have been held for eight years. ksm, khalid shaikh moment has been set held up for six and a half years. at least this president is ending the delay of bringing them to sosaties. we sent six or oven years developing a constitutional per missable tribunal. what is he going to bring him
to new york for when doesn't have to? this seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and lack of concern for rights of the public. >> chris: mayor, you keep asking and it is a legitimate question. why is the president doing this. i will throw it back at you, you talked earlier i think on fid about this was a process over safety. why do you think they made the decision. >> i think they think somehow it will increase our operation everseas. i think it is part of a whole package of the president not eking the war on terror. he tells us we can't use the description in war on wore. he has delayed of making the decision about the war strategy in afghanistan. the way there, this is, it is political strategy not war strategy and finally the whole
thing with major hasan a another indication that he doesn't get the fact that they are in an islamists ma'amic war against us. he made this. not so hard to figure out that this was yet another islamic terrorist attack on american soil. now, the second one that we have had in the -- in this decade and we had one in 1993. >> chris: mayor giuliani, thanks so much for coming in today. it is always good, a pressure to talk with you, sir. >> always a pleasure to talk to you, too. >> chris: now, for the other side of the argument we are joined by amount senator jack reed. welcome back. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: i want to start where we ended with rude did i giuliani. attorney general announced friday he will use them as a legitimate peel for yum to try
five of the other facebook detainees. why not use them? >> the damage they have done are significant and they have to be treated i think fairly but with all due process but with great sense tippity to the crimes committed in america. the attorney general point the out there are several factors. the location of the insurance tent, the type of victims. the investigative services that are ensaged in this praeses and this them to determine the best forum for the the success of the loss 'cuse is in federal court and in new york city. >> chris: the obama administration is holding these -- his allegation is holding these crowds in new york in civilian courts to make a political statement, this it president is different than the
last president and to say to the world we're different. >> well, as you pointed out, in 2006, zacarias moussaoui was tried in a fid ral court in alisyn camerota alexandria virginia. and you said in 1993 but this was not 1993. this was 2006. the alternative exists for a military tribunal then. the rush administration besided to chinese government the says. obama administration less than 10 in tribunals. so, whether -- what was a state decision but a bush administration can't be a political decision by this administration. >> chris: before we get into the specific risks because let me ask you a more fundamental
question a lot of people are asking. why did the men, allegedly enemy combatants who have key cared war why bo hell of a competitor id get the -- >> they could have fewer protections. >> and a military commission. >> they could have if they were mid under the law. all of these, circumstancely the sheik muhammad wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihaddest and if we try him before military the image of a soldier will be portrayed by the islamist community. that is not the image we want. these are -- >> i mean mayor ghoul granny said and he is write right in
cleese whenners ached off were one, i want a lawyer and to, to you have 44. it was to break our spirit and mean remember the system of government tracking dean guile and broken. yes. >> not empowered by the opinion city tubes to judge the guilt or since and punish opinion. >> chris: there are som obvious 81 if. >> there is the flake intelligence information will come out. there is much protection of that. in fact, in the 1995 prosecution of the so-called blind sheik apparently information came out that only was a coconspirator and then
left sue tan for afghanistan. there is obviously the danger of a property. it is going to make new york city, once again ground zero for ail aid. the manninger of poor a more of a political sur javier. whether are obvious downstates. >> you are vindicating this onetry. there is a symbol on the world of soggy rein than what. this is an opportunity to show we are better than them, much better than them. >> basically a political decision. more of a political statement by this country than it is a matter of justice or the safefy or the peep. in fact, the moussaoui dates prompt i fess election,
security. the case you referred to in the '90s boss at this time it was and appearance or he accused a system classification. that has been kenned. we will be no. those factors considered i don't think the president would have or the attorney general made a decision which would release classified information or endanger unnecessarily the public. the facts are pretty clear. we have done this before. we have done this consistently. >> chris: we have about 30 seconds left. what if one of the guys bets off. >> that is highly. as long astasias. >> chris: if someone is a question and then picked up again what is the message you
are againsting. >> which is row kg niced during hostility. we it. >> if he a acquitted and then picked up again. >> you presume that he billion he acquitted and released. senator reed, thank yew. always a pleasure, thanks for coming? >> thank you. up next, the top republican in congress, senator and more right after this break. sfx:racking of a taillight. female valve: hahahaha...i am strong like the ox. i crush you like tiny clown car. because you are... ...clown, yes? female valve: come, you hit me again and i break you. male valve: oh, you messed with wrong pipe now, car. ha, ha trust me...i have to live with her.
announcer:accidents are bad. but geico's good with guaranteed repairs through auto repair express. rooster crow. still tired the next day too? when you have trouble falling asleep or staying asleep, remember 2-layer ambien cr. the first layer helps you fall asleep quickly. and unlike other sleep aids, a second helps you stay asleep.
when taking ambien cr, don't drive or operate machinery. sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake with memory loss for the event as well as abnormal behaviors such as being more outgoing or aggressive than normal, confusion, agitation and halluciations may occur. don't take it with alcohol as it may increase these behaviors. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath, swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and in rare cases may be fatal. side effects may include next-day drowsiness, dizziness, and headache. in patients with depression, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide may occur. if you experience any of these behaviors or reactions contact your doctor immediately. wake up ready for your day. ask your healthcare provider for 2-layer ambien cr.
>> chris: joining us from louisville kentucky is senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good morning, chris. >> i want to ask you one question to bought ton up the conversation we had in the first segment. you have long opposed sending guantanamo prisoners to this
country. is there anything that you can and will do in the senate to try to block the president and the attorney general's decision to put these five alleged conspirators on trial in a civilian court in new york? >> unfortunately, we had that very vote on the leiberman lindsay grahame amendment just a week ago and 54 democrats voted opposed frankly, having the trials down in guantanamo. so it looks to me like the administration is going to do this. they seem to be sort of hell bent to to it. i agree with the family of daniel pearl. ksm murdered their son and they said why in the world would we want to give him the show trial that he desires? >> chris: on a related subject this is also a report today that the obama administration is considering it may buy a near empty prison in rural, illinois, to house perhaps dozens of guantanamo detainees. >> anything you can do and anything you will do to try to
stop that the? >> the senate went on record on that issue a couple of years ago, 94-3 against bringing these people to the united states. i can't imagine the people of illinois would like to have these prisoners incars rated this their state. i expect it will be a huge issue in illinois, probably in the u.s. senate race up there next year. >> chris: and is there anything you can do in terms of blocking funding for it? >> we will be looking for ways to do it and hopefully the senate and house will speak on this issue. >> chris: let's turn to healthcare reform. senate democrats are expected to bring a bill to the floor this week. do you have the 41 votes in the senate to prevent them from even bringing it to the floor? >> what we do know for sure is this is a bill that cuts medicare and raises taxes and raises insurance premiums. it has been in harry reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators have not seen
it. we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the american people to take a look at this bill as majority leader reid has had. the only way to guarantee that for sure would be to delay the process to allow everyone to fully understand what is in the bill. even though the administration's own actuary someone who works in the administration department of health and human services said it would actually drive the cost of healthcare up and it will hurt seniors, they still want to go to it, then we will have the debate and when we get on the bill if we do, there will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks. the senate is not the house. you saw in the house three votes and it was over in one day. look, we spent four weeks on a farm bill in the last congress, eight weeks on our energy bill earlier this decade. this will be on the floor for quite a long time. i think it ought to be on the floor at least as long as it has been in harry reid's
office. >> so talking about because that has been an issue. do you think that healthcare reform even if they have the votes can and will get through the senate before the end of the year? >> the american people are overwhelmingly telling us don't pass it. it will be up to whether the democratic majority wants to listen to the american people or whether they want to pass this anyway just to basically ignore the opinion of the american population and go ahead with this bill. i think it is yet to be determined whether there are 60 senators who are going to ignore public opinion and pass a bill that cuts medicare, raises taxes and raises insurance premiums. >> let's talk about some of the key issues that are going to come up and one of them is the stupak amendment which was passed by the house which basically will bar the use of federal funds in any way to provide health insurance for
for abortions. do you believe that youville 41 votes to block that in the senate? >> what we do know is that the american people regardless of how they feel about the abortion issue don't think that taxpayer money ought to be used to pay for abortions so i think that issue will be hashed out on the senate floor. i think it will be very difficult to pass a bill that in effect directly or indirectly provided tax money to pay for abortions. >> chris: let me rephrase because i kind of messed it up. are you saying that you believe you have the votes to get the stupak amendment added which would further restrict the use of federal funds? >> we don't know what will be in the bill that senator reid produces and i'm not going predict the outcome. i'm going to say that we know where the american public is. they are overwhelmingly opposed to using tax funds either directly or indirectly to pay for abortions. whether the senate will reflect american public opinion on that or not we will have to see. >> chris: just as a final wrapup question on this.
you are constantly counting votes. as you look at the various key issues out there, whether it is tightening abortion restrictions or fighting the public option or increasing limits on the illegal immigrants being able it to have any access to the system or the funding for it, where do you think is the republican's best chance of derailing or at least changing the healthcare reform bill the democrats are going to put out? >> all of those are hot button issues, abortion, immigration, whether or not the government is going to get any insurance business. all evers are contentious issues but the core of the bill is contentious as well. massive cuts in the medicare. huge tax increases on individuals and on businesses and raising insurance premiums for 85% of the americans who already have health insurance. all of these are at their core very controversial. let me tell you what we ought to do, chris. we ought not to have a 2,000-page bill. we ought to go step by step, yore gain the confidence of the
american -- regain the con faddiness of the american public and target the problems in the healthcare system and not have the government take over one sixth of our economy. >> chris: let's turn to another subject. the president has been meeting with his war council. he had eight meetings over several months considering the way forward in afghanistan. senator, if he decides to give the generals basically what they want, some where between 30 and 40,000 troops, will members of your party, will the republicans support the president's decision even over the opposition of some members of his own party? >> i think so. you know, what we are a little frustrated with, you know, during the campaign last year the president said the iraq war was the bad war and the afghan war was the good war. then he announced in march that he was going to send general stanley mcchris tollway to
take over in afghanistan. we are proplexed about the length of time it has taken to get the decision. even the liberal columnists, for example, david broader in the washington post is saying today it is time to make up your mind, mr. president. make a decision. a part of being president is you don't have easy choices, you have a lot of choices you have to make among difficult options. none of them are perfect. we do know this for sure, chris. we know that by staying on offense in the war on terror we have largely protected america since 9/11. we know there are a lot of terrorists in afghanistan and pakistan. we know what happened when the taliban was in charge of afghanistan before. i think the president as difficult as this decision is needs to make it, needs to follow the advice of the generals and if he does he will have overwhelming support among republican senators. >> chris: let me turn because i wouldn't be able to live with myself if i didn't ask you a few political questions, senator. conservatives are now talking about launching primarily
challenges against candidates who are actually picked by the senate republican leadership in a number of states. we have them up on the map there, in florida, in connecticut, in illinois, in california, and your home state of kentucky. in fact, it has gotten so serious that the national republican senate committee stopped endorsing candidates because it creates a grass roots backlash. how much of a threat is this split within the gop to your chances in 2010 the way it kind of messed up things in upstate congressional district in new york? >> no threat at all. what you see here is enormous enthusiasm to run. people believe that getting the republican nomination means you a good chance of winning. and so we have got for scam am four-way primary -- for example a four-way primary in connecticut for our nomination. state we haven't been competitive in for a very long
time. your view is this is an indication of the shifting political environment. we all know the gallop poll just last week asked the american people if the election were held today would you vote for the republican candidate or the democratic candidate for congress, our side had a four pint lead. among independents a 22-point lead. the political landscape has shifted significantly. that is why all of these people want to run for office. >> let me ask you about the political landscape within the party because announceing that an endorsement is a bat thing, not a badge of honor. >> well, they generally don't endorse anyway. so it doesn't make any deficits vince. we are happy there are a lot of people running and the reason they are running is because they think they can win in november. >> finally i have to iss ask party's apparentty pass a bill rock star, sarah palin, do you think that her criticism in the book about the mccain
campaign staff is a good or bad thing for her political future and do you think she has a good political future? >> i'm not going to give sarah palin any advice. she doesn't need any advice from me about how to go forward politically. >> do you think she has a political future? >> if she wants one. you bet she has a political future. >> i think you are supposed to say you betcha, senator, but that is close enough. >> we will see how things shake out this week on capitol hill. >> thank you, precipitation. >> coming up, our sunday panel -- thank you, chris. >> coming up, our sunday panel. you won't want to miss it. i'm robert shapiro. over a million people have discovered how easy it is to use legalzoom for important legal documents. so start your business, protect your family, launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.
the fundamental tenet of american jurisprudence that crimes are tried in the places where they occur. >> i can't see anything good come is out of this. i certainly can't see anything good come is out of it very quickly. >> that is attorney general eric holder and his predecessor during the bush years, michael mukasey disagreeing about the way to bring terrorists to justice. time for the sunday group. bill kristol of the weekly standard. mara liasson of national public radio. lynn cheney, and juan williams also from national public radio. lets start with the basic question, bill. the attorney general has decided that military commissions are now legitimate forums. they have been cleaned up and passed constitutional muster and he will use them for some trials. why did dominic do you think hd to send khalid shaikh muhammad
and the other four defendants to new york city. >> did he make the decision or did the president? >> chris: the white house says he made it. >> this is a decision with huge natural security and foreign policy implications. the foreign policy rationale, the world will be impressed to see american justice at work. this isn't the attorney general's decision to make. the president needs to take responsibility for the decision. the attorney general statement says well, they discussed it with the secretary of defense. what about the cia director. is he comfortable with the things that could be exposed at this trial aces were exposed at the 1995 trial of the blind sheik? i don't know why he did this. i am told there were bitter debates within the interagency task force that did this. the prosecutors are the military tribunals are not confident that they will hold up to convict in a civilian court. they were not given miranda warnings. they were under intense interrogation and everything that happened after this may not be admitted. holder says there is evidence
that hasn't been made public that assures me that they will get a conviction. i don't buy it. i hope they convict them and submit them to capital punishment, you know, to the death penalty but i'm worryd that this will not happen. >> chris: mara, when i asked and talked about all the obvious negative and possible downsides with senator reid and i said what is the upside and he said he shows to the world who we are and what american justice is.of clarence issues >> is that youngsters what you think is driving the obama administration, a statement to the world that we are different. >> eric holder was asked about this on pbs and said symbolism of the was a part of it. he said a lot of factors came into play. but the fact that the american justice system can try terrorists and can convict them, it has happened before. apparently 100% of terrorism defendants that are tried in new york where the targets were domestic have been convicted. so i think that the attorney general would not be going
forward with this unless he didn't have a high level of confidence that he could get a conviction and that this would be a process that would showcase the american justice system which can and has tried terror suspects successfully in the past. >> liz, what do you worry about most, the security threat to new york? the possible daneer that intelligence secret letts be disclosed? the possibility that one of these guys will get off or something else? what is your biggest concern. >> i think it is unconscionable that we are a nation at war and that the president of the united states simultaneously is denying the troops the resources that they need to win the war while he ushers terrorists on to the homeland. he is going to put then into a courthouse that is six blocks from where over 2,000 americans were killed on the worst attack in history on the american homeland. he is going to give them a public platform where they can
spew venom and preach jihad and reach out and recruit other terrorists and it is totally unnecessary. when the attorney general says that he is bringing them to justice he is ignoring the fact that khalid shaikh muhammad asked to plead guilty and be executed. we should have said all right, you have got it. instead we are bringing him and his cohorts to america and giving them the constitutional rights of american citizens. he said in the same interview that mara is talking about that this will be treated like any other crime. there is no question but that the obama administration now has in a completely indefensible way taken us back to a pre9/11 treatment of terrorism. >> chris: what about the argument that the bush administration had all of these people for eight years, they got a total of three convictions in eight years in military commissions? >> the bush administration worked very hard to put together military commissions. the first round of military commissions that they put together based on the precedent
of the fdr military commissions, approved by the supreme court in the 190s were reject -- 1940s were rejected by the supreme court. the administration put together a new set approved by congress and they held them at guantanamo where they are providing no threat to the united states. >> but three convictions in eight years. >> if you ask the family members. they do not want to seize the united states, there is no legal, no national security, no constitutional reason why we should be giving these people a mega phone from which they can recruit future jihadys and mock the victims of the attack and really put the u.s. government on trial. they will for access to classified information. >> i think the delay has been terrible. something should have been done with these people one way or the other. but the obama administration is not establishing any broad new
format. they are bringing these men to trial and i think if you believe in the constitution and if you believe in the rule of law in this country you would say these people should be brought to trial and clearly mayor bloomberg in new york and new york public officials the legal officials in terms of the people who would prosecute and the people the u.s. marshall's office all said they can handle this situation in new york. but what is key here to my mind is that you would say not to the world but to america that capacity to trystmas capacity these people in an american court and win a conviction. apparently there is no doubt here. remember, sheik khalid muhammad said he not only killed daniel pearl but taken responsibility for 9/11 before any of the enhanced -- >> let me say a word about that. he didn't get read his miranda rights. it is not clear the statements could be admitted juan. let's talk about the cases.
moussaoui. he was arrested in america in minnesota in august of 2001. is why he is the 20th hijacker. the fbi got him. they read him his rights and had a clean chain of evidence. where was carl cameron leak where was carl camero mas carl. there is one case where i like, this the embacy bombers in 1988. arrested by the fbi and they tried to do american style procedures, brought to the u.s. and tried in new york in 2001 and they were convicted. the jury refused to give them capital punishment. they are in jail. that could happen this time. >> after 1991. >> chris: wait, wait. juan, go ahead. you can't double-team him. >> thank you. >> he as can handle it. >> in this case what you have here is an opportunity for people to hear the evidence. this is a public case. the military tribunals, by the
way, overwhelming the people at guantanamo are sill going to be in military tribunals. the justice department made a decision in this case and eric holder said he is confident of winning a conviction, bill, so he made a decision in this case and what he has said very clearly is that what evidence exists that is not going to be exempted because of possible nonreading of miranda rights and the like is sufficient to win that conviction. >> but the issue is not -- >> chris: mara, you get the last word. >> about the death penalty, eric holder says that is what he is going to ask for. khalil sheik muhammad wants the death penalty. why make him into a martyr. why not lock him up for the rest of his life? >> the issue is 23409 getting convictions because we got a conviction in 1993 and after we got it we were attacked at the embays baciess -- embassies
were attacked. whens the tools are completely insufficient to keep the nation safe. >> chris: let me just say that i wanted to now fully welcome liz cheney to the channel because she learned to run right through the red light like everyone else here. step ahide for a moment. when we come back, sarah palin releases her new book and politicians and the media are buzzing. what does the panel think? find out, after the break. ÷÷÷
the campaign said right on, good, you're showing your independence, this is what meek needs to see and it was a good interview and i'm thinking if you thought that was a good interview i don't know what a bad interview was because i knew it wasn't a good interview. >> chris: love her or hate her, you are about to see a lot more of sarah palin when her book hits the stores and she comes to a television screen near you
this week. we are back now with the panel. the book isn't even officially out until tuesday and there are already lots of stories and they primarily focus on her war of words with the mccain campaign staffers whether she did right by them or they did wrong by her. from what you know is that fair to the spirit of the book and did she make a mistake talking about all the campaign things on detail. >> she had to address it. she is not going to talk about her two months in an incredibly interesting way on the stage. she takes -- settles some scores on the campaign which from my point of view is fines ahead in the last chanter in terms of her agenda. she will do the million interviews and campaigning for candidates. as newt gingrich said today she will prove herself or she won't. her fate is in her hands and a
lot of people can sit and move her out ahead of time. i was struck by people that want to do that. makes me think they are scared of her being a popular republican or conservative. she said she had a bad couric andith katie your rick let herself get mishandled in 2008. >> i'm sitting at my desk here preparing my show and two of the mccain staffers most prominently mentioned in the book and there they are, steve schmidt who said why is the bald guy always the villain both called and said the palin stories are made up and total fiction. >> you will have them feuding with each other for awhile. that will be one of the sidelines of the story and they can fight it out and i don't know who will end up getting the better of it. i don't think it will be good
for either of them. the question about palin's future. i think the fact that she is interesting and charismatic and polarizing and has tremendous popularity among the republican base guarantees a force in the party, a media celebrity. the big question is what about her future as an actual candidate. what i think about is whether or not she is willing to do the work that she wasn't willing to do when she went back to alaska which is fill in the gaps and get up to speed on policy and make sherrself into the full pack and candidate that you have to be if you going to run for president and i don't know if that is going to happen or not. >> even without that she certainly has a great career ahead of her. >> chris: liz, let me follow up on that and put yourself if you will in the position of political advisor to sarah palin. if she wanted to take advantage of all the attention she is going to get. i mean it is not just the book, she will be on oprah tomorrow and on barbara walters all week and on fox a bunch of times. should she try to pivot off
this who struck john during the campaign. >> i actually read parts of the book and it is a good book. a good read, well written. she comes across as very likeable, as somebody with a lot of common sense. when she does make criticism she does it with a pretty deft touch and the book is moving in some parts and talks about what it was like too meet mothers and other children with down's syndrome on the campaign trail. clearly reads like it was written by somebody who has got their future in mind and i think that the media likes to focus on who shot john and who is up and who is down. in terms of 2012, whatever republican takes the mantle of our party in 2012, they are going to have to be able to address the incredibly grave challenges we are facing as a nation. they will have to undo loot of the damage, some of which we talked about in the last segment that this president has done to our national security tortion our economy, to our healthcare system, to our standing around the world and the person who is going to be able to sort of put forward the
kind of leadership and courageous policy proposals that will attract republicans as well as independents and i think by 2012 youville a number of moderate democrats also looking for a way out. >> chris: let me ask a simple question before i go to juan. do you take sarah palin seriously as a potential presidential candidate? >> absolutely. >> chris: because? >> i think that she will have to go through the exact same process as anybody else but she was our vice presidential nominee in 2008 and i think that it would be nothing short of sexist to say that simply she is not a serious candidate. once you have been the vice presidential nominee you are serious candidate. now, she has to prove herself. >> bill kristol is in love with her so i will excuse his comments this morning. why would saw say she was a serious candidate for president? >> contend iter. >> let us look at the record here. the woman resigned, resigned from being governor of alaska, a responsible position, with no reason.
secondly, she is the one talking about things like death panels. she essentially gave the democrats the 23rd congressional district of new york when she hijacked the nomination from the person that the republicans had nominated and gave it to the true blue -- true red conservative i should say. and what did it do? it inmates loaded. this is one -- is imploded. this centered on herself. she doesn't know bahar is going on with her family. >> you know her well? >> this is the records of interviews. you are saying judge her ahead of time, bill. it is incredible to me. this is a winfall for barack obama in 2012. >> nobody is going to get to respond to that comment because we are going to switch to another subject. less than two minutes left. the internet is abudischak today with this picture. take a look. picture of the president of the united states bowing to the emperor of japan during his trip to asia by way of comparison when vice president chain any met the emperor in
2007, no bow. what to you make of bow gate? >> sarah palin would not have bowed. she wouldn't even have courtesied to him. don't you wish you had an attorney general who was taking the extremely risky move of bringing khalid shaikh muhammad to new york. >> and look at the comparison and think cheney 2012. >> how far do you want to go in that? >> i mean wait a minute. >> make news. let liz make news. >> that's all. >> cheney palin. anyway,. >> or palin cheney, don't be sexist. >> i met the empor emperor. >> did you bow? >> no, and we weren't told to. they don't bow. i don't know why president obama thought that was appropriate. maybe he thought it would play well in japan but it is not appropriate for an american
president to bow. >> i think it is not that significant either way. he was obviously showing his respect to a foreign leader. i don't think he was showing allegiance to the emperor of japan. >> check out panel plus where the group in continues the discussion. time now for comment that you posted to the blog wallace watch that reflected the thoughts of many about last week's tragedy at fort hood. please keep your comments coming to fox news sunday.com. up next, our power player of the week.
>> chris: the h1n1 scare is the latest in a long line of health emergencies that have confronted our country. for decades one man has led his team working almost nonstop to protect us. he is the power player of the week. >> you get confronted with various challenges through the years. hiv-aids, sars, west nile, regular influenza and pandemic influenzas. >> he has been a director of national statute of national institute of infectious diseases. he has led vaccines and other treatment in some of the worst
illnesses. >> chris: how have you stayed in such a high visibility job for so long? >> if you stick to the science, no ideology, the science is try and the science is knowledge. >> chris: these days he is focused on swine flu and long lines waiting for the vaccine. the government projected by now there would be 200 million doses but so far there are only 40 million. >> main problem was making the stuff? >> that was the problem, it was the problem. >> he says growing this strain took longer than expected. he adds while h1n1 spreads easily it turns out to be mild to moderate as flus go and doctors and patients shouldn't have any more fears about this vaccine than any other shot. >> the idea of afraid being vaccinated is probably a knee jerk reaction that doesn't look
at the scientific facts. >> chris: if this is the latest battle, it's not his biggest one. is it fair to say that aids is the fight of your career? >> no doubt about it. >> he started getting the disease in 1981, he devoted to fighting it. back then, aids activists thought he was part of the problem. >> chris: you were public enemy number one. i was the face of the federal government. >> chris: over the years pioneering work helped develop drugs to fight a disease that was once hundred percent fatal. >> now if that is a 20 person hiv infected and i begin treatment, i can predict that person would at least 69, 70 years old. >> he started at the national institute of health in 1968. >> i wanted to be clear, infectious diseases, they make
you very sick or do something and you make somebody better. >> chris: in the last 41 years, his work ethic is legendary. >> they say infamous workaholic, never considers retirement, how do you plead? >> guilty, totally guilty. >> chris: either now at age 68 he has no interest in slowing down? >> we have the aids challenge, malaria and tuberculosis, we have a lot of things we need to do. that is the future i am looking at zbloock if you wanted practical advice about the h1n1 virus, who should get it, how do you know if you have swine flu, see a special segment at fox news sunday.com. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday.